I haven't yet seen this new movie out with Harrison Ford and Brendan Frazier, so I can't give my opinion of how good it is, or how well (or poorly) the scientific process is represented, though, since it's only a 2 hour movie, my guess is that it likely won't (nor can it) do justice to the long drawn out process that is drug discovery. All that aside, they did review the film over at the Scientist, so if you have any interest, you can check it out.
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57091/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Bad Science leads to Bad Medicine
So, I've posted before about how there is absolutely no substantive evidence to back the claim that vaccines cause autism. The one and only study to make such a claim was published in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has been all over the news this week in the wake of investigations into unethical research practices. Now, even before the revelations of the past week, many people had reason to doubt the study that kicked off the anti-vaccination movement. For example, Wakefield had a financial (and huge conflict of) interest in developing an alternative to traditional vaccines at the time he published the study. Also, the original study only included 12 children, which is too small of a sample to infer anything meaningful about the population at large. And that would be if the data could be trusted, but since it seems that much of the data was faked, I guess the point is moot. It's no wonder that the rest of Wakefield's co-authors on the study demurred from the conclusions he had drawn, and most of them withdrew their names from the paper. In addition to all of this, however, the past week has been even more enlightening... an investigation into Wakefield's practices by Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) revealed unethical practices by the good doctor, including giving painful spinal taps to children in the study "without clinical reason". Additionally, in the past week, the medical journal, the Lancet completely removed the paper from its publication record. I wish that all of this would finally convince people that there is no truth to Wakefield's ridiculous claims, but sadly, as this article in the London Times points out, many of the antivaxers will only see this as "a setup" or a witch hunt, and the "persecution" of Andrew Wakefield will only strengthen their belief that he is right.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Pretty Solid Neuroscience Reporting
And of all places, these two stories happened to be on NBC's the Today show. They did a pretty good job with them. This first story looks at a surgery to remove an essential tremor from an 80 year old man. They do a good job of reporting and educating, except, where Dr. Nancy Snyderman says the "brain has no nerve fibers", I believe what she meant was no pain sensing nerve fibers, which is true, and that is how they were able to do the surgery while the patient was still awake.
In this second story, they talk about some new research that links low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). I felt that the doctor they interviewed did a good job of being cautious about what the results of the study really mean, and readily admitted that all we know at this point is that there is a correlation between low serotonin levels and SIDS, but we don't yet know if low serotonin levels play a causative role in infant mortality.
I'm a PC
Oh, it's so funny because it's true!
However, despite my dislike for the all too user friendly Mac, my support for all things Windows has jumped a few notches in the past couple of weeks since Bill Gates decided to donate 5 and a half billion dollars to fund research aimed at combating global warming (so-called geoengineering), and on top of that, another 10 billion to help get vaccines to kids in developing countries. What this means is that, unlike a large portion of the rest of the population, the Gateses (Bill and Melinda) clearly recognize that global warming is real and poses a real threat, and vaccines do not cause autism, but rather save lives. It makes me so happy to see people doing good work based on good science!
Ginko supplements further debunked
Recently, I posted about how Ginko Biloba, a very popular herbal supplement, does not live up to its many and varied claims to boost your health and brain power. Now, it seems like a review of the available research suggests that, not only does Ginko not have any significant benefits, but it may also be toxic as well, particularly if you have epilepsy or are taking anti-seizure medication. Some of the reports in the review claim ginkotoxin may be linked to ailments as varied as Alzheimer's and liver disease. Of course, just like I am skeptical whenever someone claims a supplement is a miracle treatment for numerous ailments, I am also skeptical when one supplement is claimed as the cause to numerous ailments. However, this research does add to a growing body of evidence that suggests that Ginko supplements (and teas and foods) are definitely not doing you any good (even if we remain skeptical about how much bad they are doing), so I wouldn't recommend wasting your money on this overrated plant. If you want to boost your brain power, you are going to have to work out (both physically and mentally), or, if you need a quick fix, drink regular tea or coffee (as caffeine has been shown to enhance attention, focus, and memory).
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Sciencey Diet
Not to be confused with the dog food "Science Diet", though, I would question how much actual science is behind that product as well, the post I'm linking here is actually about a recent Weight Watchers (WW) v. Jenny Craig (JC) lawsuit, where WW has taken issue with JC's commercials claiming that their diet is twice as effective as the other leading diets, supposedly based on clinical evidence. Turns out, the science really isn't there to back it up. It just goes to show how easy it is to claim something as science and with enough money, how easy it is to get that message out. Normally, and without enough money on the other side, the message tends to stay out, and get seen or heard enough that it can become mainstream and then accepted as true. Sure, the supposed effectiveness of Jennny Craig isn't nearly as important as global warming, vaccinations, or science education (where bad science messages get too much attention and by proxy, an undeserved air of credibility), but I think it still illustrates the point. Whether you're voting on new schoolboard standards or just choosing which diet plan to go on, dig up the data for yourself, and make an informed decision... that's all I'm sayin'
Monday, February 1, 2010
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
So, this is a bit overdue... my brother-in-law who happens to be "in law" sent me a link to this lecture at Harvard Law School (of course the lecture was a few weeks ago, which is why this is overdue). Anyway, the lecture was about how there will likely never be an MRI based lie detector test that will be readily admissible in court because lying is a complex process that involves many different areas of the brain... mostly because there are many different types of lying (e.g. a well rehearsed lie vs. a lie you make up on the spot, or a lie you feel guilty about vs. one that you don't). Anyway, I was holding off on posting about this because I wanted to write up a post about how polygraph machines (aka "lie detectors") aren't reliable at detecting deceit (which is why their results are currently inadmissible in many US courts). However, since it will likely be a while before I get to write up that post, I will simply link you (through the Harvard link) to an article about what functional brain scans are revealing about how we lie (namely that we use many different parts of the brain to do it). If you want to see how unreliable polygraphs are, for the time being, I suggest you check out the episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" where they covered the topic pretty well. And, in the meanwhile, here's another article about fMRI scans being used in legal cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
